On 12 June 2017 at 16:28, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 06/12/2017 02:28 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> >> Hi Tom, >> >> On 9 June 2017 at 17:25, Mike Stump wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 9, 2017, at 7:24 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: >>>> >>>> this patch adds effective target stack_size. >>> >>> >>>> OK for trunk if x86_64 and nvptx testing succeeds? >>> >>> >>> Ok. >>> >>> The only last issue in this area that I know about is that there are a >>> few more test cases that need up to 48 MB to run, the problem is that >>> targets might have substantially less memory. Stack size is one of the ways >>> this problem can be exposed. The failure to load case is or can be handled >>> in other ways, but the dynamic allocation case I think is relatively poorly >>> handled. On my machine, I just punted by running on a virtual simulator >>> that I pushed memory up to 48 MB and ignored the issue. If anyone wants to >>> try their hand at it, I'd be happy to review some patches. For those on >>> demand virtual memory systems, of course, the problem is invisible. I >>> didn't have any good ideas in this area. Marking large memory test cases >>> with size information, and then just trimming based upon size was my only >>> thought. Not exactly portable, as the exact size of any test case is of >>> course target dependent; but, if we get close enough, it can provide enough >>> of a solution I think. >>> >>> If people have better ideas in this area, even if you don't want to >>> implement them, it'd be nice to hear about them. >> >> >> After this commit (r249090), I've noticed that badalloc1.C fails at >> execution on aarch64 and arm bare-metal targets. >> >> It is compiled with -DSTACK_SIZE=16384, maybe that's too small? > > > I think that what's going on is the following: > - your board description file for aarch64 and arm bare-metal sets > gcc,stack_size > - before I committed the patch, STACK_SIZE was not defined when > compiling this testcase, because the activated .exp files do not > define it > - after I committed the patch, STACK_SIZE started to be defined, and > the test started to fail > I think you are right. > I'm not sure if this test was ever compiled with STACK_SIZE defined. > > Either way, the test-case uses the presence of STACK_SIZE, not the actual > value, so changing the value of gcc,stack_size won't make a difference. > > Ideally you'd find out what the exact reason for the failure is, and update > the test-case accordingly. > > The easiest thing we can do is to remove the STACK_SIZE setting in the > test-case (and to avoid confusion, remove all the dead STACK_SIZE-enabled > code), which returns the status quo of before the patch. > I tried to compile with -DSTACK_SIZE & execute the test on x86, and the first call to malloc() (as defined in the testcase) aborts. This call occurs before entering main() and tries to allocate size=72704, which is way larger than arena_size = 256 + 8 * 128 (=1280). This is with a shared libstdc++. Linking with -static also implies using -Wl,--allow-multiple-definition, and leads to a failure to allocate size=5280. I too wonder whether the test ever worked with STACK_SIZE defined? (Yet, arena_size was updated when PR64535 was fixed) The attached patch removes the support for STACK_SIZE in the testcase as you suggested, and it works fine (cross-tested on aarch64/arm targets) OK for trunk? Thanks, Christophe > Thanks, > - Tom